George Bush is THRILLED with the Loss
Sometimes You Win More by Losing
George Bush has recently had two very distinct opportunities to influence the mid-term election in a way that would have certainly resulted in the GOP retaining both houses of Congress. He chose to miss both opportunities. Firstly, had he announced Don Rumsfeld's retirement a week ago, less people would have voted against the Bush policy in Iraq. Instead, he chose to inflame the situation by lying. He could have given his usual mantra of "Rummy is doing a heckuva job." Instead, he ratcheted up the anger of constituents by declaring that Rumsfeld would be around two more years. When asked today why he chose to lie, his response was, "I didn't want to influence the election." Since when does a politician have qualms with influencing an election in the favor of his own party?
The second missed opportunity was the opportunity today to secure the Senate for the G.O.P. Once again he failed. How could he have done that? One of the most qualified shoe-ins to be Sec Def is Joe Lieberman. The Governor of Connecticut is a Republican and presumably would have selected a Republican to take Joe Lieberman's seat in the Senate if Lieberman were to resign in order to become Secretary of Defense. Bush's pick was a yes man named Robert Gates. Virginia's senate vote would not matter if Bush had chosen Lieberman.
Why is it that Bush would purposely lose the midterm election on 2006? Simple. He knows that the Democrats will be left with no alternative but to demand more boots on the ground in Iraq. Watch for him to fight that, but to eventually give in. They might even decide they want a draft. Who knows? In any case, Bush will have plausible deniability and full reign to blame the other party so that by 2008, Americans will be as fed up with the Democrats as they were with the Republicans yesterday. The one big difference is that the war will truly be won by then. It will be all over but the leaving... a feat which the next President, Condi Rice will pull off and get credit for, making her a crowd favorite. The Dems will lose the House, the Senate and the Presidency in '08, and the end of the war will bring in a new era of prosperity for which the G.O.P can take credit.
I am glad Nancy Pelosi gets a chance to make some changes, but the reality is that in this case, EVERYBODY won something yesterday. Bush gets to win his war... and he gets to blame the democrats for what will be the cost of winning that war. You didn't think George Bush was that smart? Give me a break. You don't buy an MBA from Harvard with bubble gum money. He speaks to the lower echelon, but he plays chess like a champion... so well in fact, that the Democrats actually think they won something. By the way.... For those of you that might peg me as a conservative, read my other articles. I am as liberal as they come. I just happen to know a true ass whoopin' when I see one.
Published by Tiffany Ranae
I am a 3* year old pre-op transsexual woman with a history in religion and politics. If you want to think about old things in new ways, I'm your girl. If it's not original, I won't write it. View profile
- Sometimes you win more by losing
- George Bush is a heckuva chess player
- CRAP! I hate it when I'm right!
10 Comments
Post a CommentA brilliant theory, but with a fatal flaw. Now that the Democrats control both houses what's to stop them from pulling out and redeploying half a world away, no matter what the President wants. The democratic position is invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They seem to think if they pull the troops out of the Middle East everything will be just hunky dory. With Democrats in control we'll see history repeat with helicopters carrying refugees off of our Iraqi embassy rooftop like they did in Saigon in 1973.
i STAND BEFORE YOU ALL, A MAN WHO HAS NEVER VOTED FOR ANYTHING IN HIS LIFE. FOR SOME REASON I LOOK AT VOTING ALMOST THE SAME WAY A KILLER LOOKS AT THE DEATH PENALTY YOU CAN GIVE HIM THE CHAIR OR YOU CAN WIPE A NEDDLE WITH ALCOHOL BEFORE YOU STICK HIM AND KILL HIM EITHER WAY HE WILL REST IN PEACE.
Mark, you are going to be sorely disappointed. You have some seriously misguided optimism in both the UN and NATO. GW1 was a response to aggression, not so with OIF. Afghanistan, entirely different picture altogether. Apples and oranges. And NATO can't muster the political will or military strength to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, much less in Iraq (which is a place they don't want to be in the first place).
Sorry Tiffany, but I can't accept your premise-Bush is far too dirty to want to have to deal with any real oversight. And yes, it is time to seek international help for the situations overseas. First, we should reach out to other countries, letting them know that things will be different now. And I think that the Dems have learned some things, and will only build on the success of this year in 2008.
Sorry, Greg, but i have my hopes. I'd settle for NATO if not the UN. The UN had no problems going in in GW1, and had no problems in Afganistan. I think it had a lot to do with Bush and his "my way or the highway" approach. Also the fact that we were determined not to share any of the "gains" that might have been made. There's oil revenue to be had here, no country will walk away from that. Plus, actual charisma and diplomacy could go a long way. Send Clinton as an ambassador, and watch other countries change their minds.
You have to define "win," though and the Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Kerry definition is different from a lot of other definitions. One more thing, most true conservatives are glad for last night's reality check. The GOP has strayed far from its ideological roots and has thus lost much of its traditional support base.
Finally, I expect the Dems to expand their gains in '08. And Mark, forget the UN. The only countries going into Iraq are the ones already there. It had nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with not wanting to be involved. Believing otherwise is pure fantasy. Again, nice approach Tiffany.
I also don't buy the whole "throwing the election" strategy you are going for in the article. But I will tell you this. There are only two options for Iraq: pull out or send enough folks to finish the job. You are right that America is not ready for the increase needed to win. I see a Democrat-forced phased withdrawal coming, followed by civil war in Iraq.
Tiffany, interesting approach. A couple of things I want to comment on: it is quite puzzling why Bush made his statement about Rummy last week when he had to have been already looking at Gates. Not sure it had anything to do with election interference, but it is very puzzling. Next, I personally (as a soldier) would have loved to see Powell coaxed back as Sec Def. He understands the guys on the ground and would not be a rubber stamp for anyone.
I'm a little more optimistic. I think that the Democrats will engage the United Nations into Iraq, reforge old alliances, and convince the world that a safe Iraq is better. Thus they'll be more boots, but they'll be international boots. Of course, we'll have to give up our imperial ambitions, and perhaps donate those permanent Iraq bases to UN forces...Bush may have gone to Havard and gotten an MBA, but every business venture he headed ran itself into the ground, and I'm confident he couldn't even pronounce Anatoly Karpov, much less have any idea who he is.